Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (10)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Downward, P.
Right arrow Articles by Ramsay, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Related Collections
Right arrow B15 - Historical; Institutional
Right arrow B41 - Economic Methodology
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Cambridge Journal of Economics 26:481-500 (2002)
Copyright © 2002 Cambridge Political Economy Society

Article

Critical realism, empirical methods and inference: a critical discussion

Paul Downward * , John H. Finch {dagger} and John Ramsay *

*Staffordshire University Business School, Stoke-on-Trent, UK, and {dagger}University of Aberdeen, Scotland.

Address for correspondence: Paul Downward and John Ramsay, Division of Economics, Staffordshire University Business School, Stoke-on-Trent ST4 2DF, UK; email: bstpd{at}staffs.ac.uk and bstjr{at}staffs.ac.uk; John H. Finch, Department of Economics, University of Aberdeen, Edward Wright Building, Dunbar Street, Aberdeen AB24 3QY, Scotland; email: j.h.finch{at}abdn.ac.uk

Abstract

This paper reviews the critical realist critique of the methods of analysis adopted in neoclassical research and argues that there is scope for clearer guidance for economics researchers who wish to pursue empirical research in the critical realist tradition. It is argued that critical realist epistemology, derived from its open-systems ontology, is unnecessarily dismissive in rejecting research methods that draw inferences from stable empirical regularities and patterns. The argument draws upon Keynes's philosophical explanations of decision-making and probability, on behavioural and institutional explanations of emerging and stable institutions, and on inductive research techniques such as grounded theory, to establish a role for a plurality of quantitative and qualitative approaches to critical realist research.

Key Words: Economic methodology • Critical realism • Quantitative and qualitative research • Emerging institutions • Keynesian probability


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Organizational Research MethodsHome page
J. Fendt and W. Sachs
Grounded Theory Method in Management Research: Users' Perspectives
Organizational Research Methods, July 1, 2008; 11(3): 430 - 455.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Cambridge J EconHome page
P. Downward and A. Mearman
Retroduction as mixed-methods triangulation in economic research: reorienting economics into social science
Camb. J. Econ., January 1, 2007; 31(1): 77 - 99.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cambridge J EconHome page
F. Castellacci
A critical realist interpretation of evolutionary growth theorising
Camb. J. Econ., November 1, 2006; 30(6): 861 - 880.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cambridge J EconHome page
F. Scheibl and A. Wood
Investment sequencing in the brick industry: an application of grounded theory
Camb. J. Econ., March 1, 2005; 29(2): 223 - 247.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.